flexibility to decide and decide that i want to continue on as a single family home. i do agree that they are out there and they exist and we must do something to address them. there have been a number of issues that i have not seen addressed in this legislation that gives me pause. so with all of that said, our office has been working with planning department to figure out how it is to increase the number of housing units in district 4, it's equally challenging conversation and equally hard to figure out what the incentives will be and that is a conversation we are trying to have to address the over lying issue in our city which san francisco is a very attractive place to live and we'll always have people who want to live here but it's very expensive. again, i want to thank supervisor chiu for all of your hard work of this legislation but i do not feel that property owners despite it being a volunteer program

would want to take advantage of. >> supervisors farrell? >>supervisor mark farrell: thank you. i want to thank you for your hard work. in terms of this legislation, very conflicting points of view of view from my perspective and i hear from my neighbors and other neighbors in the city that there are people already living in these units. i will say out right that i disagree with parts of this legislation particularly with the cost past through and the mergers and the ability or lack thereof. in court what has been in my head is what we are doing principally to talk about by supervisor yee and

tang and i appreciate supervisor wiener for taking out some of that language. i do know we see families leaving and we have families that cannot afford to stay here and there are families looking for certain kinds of stock in this city. if this does too well that we start to lose our pure single families in our neighborhood. the beauty in our city is about our neighborhoods and diversity of our different neighborhoods. if some people want to live in high rises or a single family home. we have done some zoning changes. i support that. i think we should have housing stock to support anybody who wants to live in this type of housing in san francisco. that is a concern of mine. on the flip

side this is an opt in program. that is designed on the flip side for families maybe on the edge of not being able to stay in san francisco would want to rent their in law units to be able to stay in our city to keep families here and to some of supervisor avalos comments about having protection and having live in units up to code. i do have some hesitation around the potential consequences but because of the nature i share some of the comments that have been made that many of the owners that i have spoken with are not going to take advantage of this but because it's opt in, i think it's worth trying. i know supervisor chiu it's something i would support. >> supervisor chiu and kim? >>supervisor jane kim: i want to appreciate the

conversation again and appreciate the check in hearings that's been placed on the year and 2 years. of course i have the concern that i had articulated earlier but i acknowledge that as speculation as well as who will opt into program. i want to say that i absolutely hear what supervisor avalos is speaking of and we have home owners that depend on that type of income, while i'm not sure they will opt into this program because they are concerned about making those capital out lays. i hope the supervisors will follow up soon with an incentive program to help those home owners out. the cost of bringing up to code and by paying more property taxes without being able to raise the rent. i wouldn't want the property owner to do but it has very

little incentive. i'm going support it that we will soon follow up with some type of incentive program. that supervisor avalos articulated which by i think incentivize the home owners that we would like to see opt into this program. i would like to thank everyone for their work on this and i know president chiu's office spent a lot of time on this legislation. >> supervisor chiu? >> just some closing comments. i want to thank all the members of the public and all the stakeholders and all the staff for your thoughts and work on this and i very much appreciate the concerns. i want to help supervisor avalos if you are thinking about going forward in a funding opportunity in terms of assisting owners to currently

assisting owners with their building and safety requirements and it's something we need to do. frankly it was a difficult part of the conversation and we weren't able to figure that out and i very much hope that we will be able to work together through your office to do that and i want to take a moment to some of the points that supervisor tang raised in the fact that this legislation does not allow for cost for pass throughs by the owners and remergers except for those passed by the board under avalos leadership. the reason we absolutely considered those items but the concerns around ford affordability is why we want to make sure that we didn't create any upward pressures on their rent. that is why we did this as a careful balance. that being said if we find out in 2 years that there aren't enough incentives for people that

want to legalize the units whether a lack of requirements are creating incentives for property owners and i want to just acknowledge the genuine concern and let you know that we had been thinking about it. one final thanks and statement. i want to thank my aid amy chang who devoted the past year on this. i want to thank you for your leadership on this and the final statement which is after 70 years of a shadow economy and don't ask don't tell set of city policies, i hope we can stabilize critical affordable housing for the thousands of our most vulnerable residents and colleagues, i ask for your support. >> on this ordinance, anything else colleagues? as amended if we can have a roll call. >> city clerk: chiu, cohn,

farrell, tang, no, supervisor wiener, aye, supervisor yee, no, supervisor avalos, aye, breed, hee, campos. 8 ayes, two no. >> why don't we go back to our 3:00 p.m. special order. madam clerk please call items 19-22 item 19:[public hearing - appeal of exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the san francisco municipal transportation agency sfmtaa board of directors approval of resolution no. 14-023, california environmental quality act categorical exemption determinations for commuter shuttle policy and pilot program and amending transportation code, division ii, and approval of motion to suspend the sfmta board of directors rules of order , article 4, section 10, regarding published notice approved on january 21, 2014. appellants; richard t. drury and christina

m. caro, on behalf of sara shortt, the harvey milk lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender democratic club, service employees international union local union 1021, and san francisco league of pissed-off voterss filed february 19th, 201441234 sfitem 20: affirming the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion affirming the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt201441234 item 20: affirming the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion affirming the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from 201441234 item 20: affirming the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion affirming the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from environmental review 1234 item 2: 140127: sponsor: wiener resolution of intent initiating the nomination of the sequoiadendron giganteum tree at 3066 market street for landmark tree status pursuant to public works code , section 8100bb; acknowledging the temporary designation of such tree pursuant to public works code , section 8100dd; and authorizing other official acts in furtherance of this resolution 1234 item 21: [reversing the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion reversing the determination by the planning department that the san agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from environmental review. 21234 item 21: [reversing the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program]

motion reversing the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from environmental review. twenty-one 1234 item 22: [preparation of findings to reverse the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion directing the clerk of the board to prepare findings reversing the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is from environmental review. twenty-one 1234 item 21: [reversing the exemption determination - san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program] motion reversing the determination by the planning department that the san francisco municipal transportation agency's commuter shuttle policy and pilot program is exempt from environmental review. 221234 ooul >> we have before us the appeal for review. this project is cat egorically expect. we'll hear from the appellant and then we'll hear from the appellant and we'll hear from the planning department who have their grounds on this determination for this final review. finally from planning from project sponsor the transportation municipal agency and we'll hear from members of the public that support the mta and each speaker will have up to 10 minutes to speak and finally the appellants will have up to 3 minutes for rebuttal arguments. if there are any objections to proceeding in this way. why don't we hear from our appellant mr. drurey. >> thank you president chiu. my name is richard drurary representing appellant schwartz of the democratic club and the san francisco of league of voters on this

matter. we are passing out an additional comment letter. i'm sorry for the lateness of this lett. it responds to two issues from yesterday. one to the budget legislative analyst which is absolutely critical to this matter which was by supervisor eric mar who is attending other issues with his daughter in disneyland. it's very important. it's spring break and he should be there. the other report by responding to our early letter. i have done this as quickly as i can. i hope you will take the time to read this, especially budget analyst report is absolutely critical to this vote. i would like to start out by focusing on attention on ceqa which is

what this matter is about. the fundamental rule of ceqa is that environmental review is supposed to occur before the agency takes action, not after. you don't approve a project and then find out what are the impacts by measuring air quality, pedestrian safety risk after the buses are already out of the gate. satisfy -- ceqa review is supposed to take action before, not after. the city attorney agrees that these shuttle buses are illegally using muni red zones in violation of state vehicle code. these are pirate shuttles. these are illegal. the city is about to allow 200 of these pirate bus shops

with hundreds of shuttle buses carrying thousands of people from san francisco without any ceqa environmental review at all. despite the fact that there is expert testimony in the record showing that these buses run on diesel fuel. they cause cancer risk that exceeds ceqa threshold adopted by our bay area district and slows down muni transportation time. that cause conflicts with bicycles and displays our low income and modern income community about who we were just speaking in the last item. at the same time, we are trying to create new housing opportunities for low and moderate income people in secondary housing units and loudable goal we are creating

shuttle buses that displace the low income people we are trying to help. ceqa recognizes -- >> can i mention this. we have a rule in the board chamber to not express either support or opposition to statements. if there is going to be a statement that everyone disagrees with ora -- an agrees with. we pause your time. back to you. >> thank you. at the same time, that the city is performing a ceqa exemption, the city is preparing a full environmental impact report for muni's transit efficiency tax project. muni has to do a full

eir. when google wants to run illegal pilot shuttle there is no review at all. environmental review, ceqa review is required to analyze what are the impacts of this in terms of pedestrians, damage to our streets, in terms of bicycle safety and -- diesel emissions and what are the measures to reduce those impacts. can require non-diesel buses and those that don't interfere with bicycle lanes and pedestrians. can we require funding for low and moderate income housing. these are all alternatives that would be analyzed in a ceqa eir and what this city is bypassing completely. that is

illegal. class 6, it says it's limited to basic data collection and research and experimental management. this is not an experiment. also, this project goes far beyond the information collection. we are not just collecting data about the buses, they are changing the law. currently it's illegal for these buses to stop in red zones at all. the city is changing the law to make it legal. that's not just information collection, that's a law change. also, the city admits that ill will be moving stops and relocating many of these stops. that's

also the court may not exact exemption from ceqa if there is environmental impact. we have that here in spades. the budget and the city's own budget and legislative analyst report which was issued yesterday and was commissioned by supervisor eric mar concludes that these buses are having a negative impact on san francisco. the reports conclude that these google buses they are extremely heavy. they are 60,000 pounds when fully loaded cause over a dollar a damage to city streets for every mile traveled. by comparison, a fully loaded suv causes one

penny of damage to city streets. we are talking about a lot of damage. we are not talking $1 per is to the. -- stop. it cost me $2 to get on a muni. these buses are conflicting with muni services. the report also concludes that these shuttles are blocking traffic and causing safety impacts on pedestrians and bicyclist and especially differently abled people not able to get out because these commuter shuttles are blocking the muni stops. we commissioned reports from impact partners of a reputable

firm that did studies throughout the state. that this is an environmental impact displacement. they are caution displacement impact and brining high income people into the city and displacing low income and moderate income people. in school bussing we bus low income children of color to go to neighborhoods of quality schools . here we are bussing white adults where they displace low and moderate income people. this is the reverse of affirmative action. human impact partners concludes that this has significant noise impact and we have submitted reports from rose feld that these shuttle

buses alone cause significant -- cancerous risk. the baseline is for two reasons. it's illegal, an illegal operation cannot be the ceqa baseline. these are pirate shuttles. second. the city is changing the law. in so doing it's taking something that is currently illegal and trying to make it legal. with submitted the testimony of traffic engineer tom bro hard, a professional engineer. many don't want to run illegal pilot shuttles. they have reducing the number of operators and increase the

number of buses, operators and air quality risk. this is not merely maintaining the status quo ante, this will result in increase in the impact we are currently seeing from the illegal program. thank you. i will be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. i think a number of us are trying to understand what happens if we would support you on this appeal. i understand your argument is that with commuter shuttles and the program as proposed we would see more traffic accidents and more pollution and more congestion. and we learned from the mta that if shuttles in san francisco are removed, 50 percent of those that don't have cars would get cars, 35,000 car trips a day,

11,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions. can you help us understand the continue -- contradictions in the argument? >> most than half said they would drive alone if the shuttles were discontinue. >> half said they would drive alone. >> 49 percent said they would live in san francisco and would also put less pressure on low and moderate income housing in the city and the next is public transit. which is also great. this is not the end of the world. but if the board were to require ceqa review, the shuttles would simply continue to operate as they have been as a gray area of the law. the city has not

been issuing many tickets. they though -- know they violating the law. there is not formal agency action. it's the agency action that triggers the ceqa review. we can ceqa review is required to legalize this program and then make a fully informed decision on how the program ought to operate and what measures imposed including emission controls, location of stops and funding moderate and low income housing. in the meantime i believe the program could continue to run in the gray area that it's been running for about 3 years. >> i appreciate those comments. i appreciate the fact that there likely will be some people who will been taking public transit but let's say there is chance that 49 of them will be driving in

their private vehicles and wonder what kind of effect that is going to have on our streets when it comes to pollution and traffic. also if you can respond to the san francisco bicycle coalition sent us a letter and what they laid out also echoed in the article that said that shared grave concerns about this appeal because if we were to uphold this appeal that would jeopardize this program to advance bicycling and pedestrian safety and transit improvement. we know we are in a time where we need do everything we can to move forward with pedestrian improvements and cycling improvements. can you respond to this issue? >> frankly i don't understand the comment. we are not

saying those are improper. we are saying this one is in large part because buses are interfering with bicycle lanes and those are precisely the impacts that ought to mitigate on the eir. these are those who raised these concerned. i would find the best locations for shuttle buses to stop that don't interfere with bicycles and pedestrians. >> i might be interested if we were adopting a permanent program. if we were to support your appeal, the same wild west that occurs in the street with a lack of regulatory control around commuter traffic would exist and what we currently see on the streets without any rules, i'm trying to understand that i would think that a pilot

program that creates some rules and structures which the sf mta has dealt with the number of issues would be addressed. i'm not sure why that is not preferable to a situation that we would have a lack of rules and chaos on our streets. >> before we write those rules, we should know what we are writing. we need ceqa review to write, if we have stopping, what should those stops should be and what those mitigation measures be. if san francisco wants to reroute the commuter buses, it did you tell does an eir. why should google buses we preferentially treated to our system. >> we are including data to inform the best policy that we have. >> over an 18-month period is a long time and before the

government takes a year 1/2 and starts moving things around without knowing what kind of impacts we are going to have, it's important to do the ceqa review now upfront and that's what the law requires. we are not talking about, we are talking about two things, policy and law. the law is meaningful and ceqa says before government takes action you have to be fully informed. you have to analyze the environmental impacts and alternatives before you take action. ceqa says look before you leap. >> i appreciate that. >> thank you for the presentation, mr. drurey and for the very helpful submissions. i have a number of questions for you about some different contensions that you've raised. so, the

first is you made a couple comments today and also rethinking your brief. in your presentation today you talked about "trucking in high income people who will displace other san francisco residents" bringing high income people in "and in page 10 you talk about displacement and" replace them with workers with the technical companies sponsoring these shuttles and wealthier and less likely to come from people of color. "my question to you is what do you mean by those sentences? let me tell you how i'm reading those and frank lau e -- frankly what i think is at the center of

causing cancer and bicycling. these statements are at the front of what is going on here is what is not a ceqa issue which is a political current. that is a significant set of assumptions that use technology workers that aren't real san franciscans. that they came here as a result of the shuttles, that there is some sort of outside invading force taking over our city and that they just aren't one of us. now, we know and anyone who knows people who ride these shuttles knows that quite a few of them have lived here for a very long time. many of them used to drive and now take the shuttles. many of them consider san francisco home and are passionate about this city and in fact in the

survey that you just cited more than two-thirds of them said that even if the shuttles disappeared tomorrow they would stay in san francisco and half of them would brave that awful community -- commute on the 101. given that, is it your contention that these people who are on these shuttles are actually not real san franciscans? that's aah! it reads and the statements you just made, that's how it's sounds. single family >> that is what is on the ceqa section g-12 that it will replace a number of existing population replacement of construction elsewhere. the place for them being displaced ground 0